Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds return-shape context the annotations cannot: a cap of 20 results, sort order by start date, and that each item carries only id and a citreasurehunt.com URL rather than full detail. Minor gap: no pagination or offset behavior is described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences: what it finds, when to use it, and what it returns plus where to go next. Zero filler and the domain scope and examples are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating result count, sort order, per-item fields, and the get_event handoff for detail. For an eight-parameter, zero-required search tool this is enough for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usable semantics beyond the schema by framing the filters as a sentence ('filter by country, city, dates, type, practice or free text') and by tying free text to a real use case ('workshops with <teacher>', 'silent').

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Contact Improvisation events) with the covered event types enumerated and geographic scope ('worldwide'). It names get_event as the follow-up tool, so the agent can distinguish it from the get_* siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete trigger examples ('CI festivals in Germany this summer', 'workshops with <teacher>') and explicitly routes to get_event for prices, teachers and full descriptions. It also implies the filter axes available, so the agent knows both when to pick this tool and when to escalate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.